An Evaluation of Evidence for the Age of the Universe

[spiritman]

Interesting about measuring the age of the Universe through the use of CMB's and temperature measurements, I haven't heard this before, most chatters I've come in contact with use the speed of light measurement.

It is much easier to explain and comprehend how we can know the universe is at least 13 billion years old with light received from the most distant quasars, than to explain and comprehend any other method I think. And outside of CMB and rate of expansion, I am unaware of anything else that pushes the age of the universe back further than these distant quasars (with the possible exception of seeing galaxies' light being 'warped' via gravitational lensing by the quasars that we see that are even further out than them! However I don't know anything else about these galaxies, and it is something that has just recently been discovered).

I"d like to thank you for that input, this is something new to me that I will look into. However I'd like to point out, that a very small fraction of our Universe has been explored. And therefore for a scientist to say for certain, that between Earth and stars that are Billions of light years away , that there is absolutely no phenomena, that would speed light up has me raising my eye brow a bit.

I think that is a legitimate concern for people who aren't well informed on the topic. While I will concede that we can't know for certain that somewhere light isn't being transported faster than "c", any of this phenomena will have a very minute effect if it in fact exists. While we haven't physically explored the vastness of space, we can certainly observe it (and therefore know what is out there for the purpose of this discussion). It is a fact that light in a vacuum (this would include most of space) moves at a constant speed "c". The vast majority of normal matter (things made out of atoms) in the universe hydrogen with the second being helium, and this composes most of the 'space dust'. When light goes through these dust clouds it will slow down light through atomic excitation and decitation, however this slowness is negligible when talking about the age of the universe (if anything it will increase the lower limit of age). Other elements out there would be Carbon, Nitrogen, Beryllium etc, which too will only slow down light increasing the lower limit (in fact more so than hydrogen and helium through refraction). So even if this phenomena exists, it is not prevalent enough to change the current understanding of light traveling through over 99% of space.

Also, in the last link you put up it talked about light being made to go 300 times faster than normal (I am skeptical of the claim). Even if we take the most distant quasars, and divide it by 300 (13 billion divided by 300) we still get over 43 million years, and that's assuming this phenomena was present throughout the entirety of the light's trip. There really is no way around it, through empirical observation the universe is quite old. To turn 13 billion years into 10 thousand years requires that light travels over a million times it's normal speed in a vacuum (the highest speed it can obtain under normal circumstances) on average.

We simply don't know enough about what's out there to boldy make that statement. Therefore in my humble opinion since the speed of light can be altered by outside forces, it would no longer be prudent to use it as a measuring stick for the age of the Universe.

While there are other methods, I still think it is a reliable source for a lower limit. We would still have to show how such conditions are met in space in order for it to become a legitimate scientific proposition. As of now, no such proposition is being worked up as far as I know.

Edit: P.S. There is this one video on youtube that shows that by increasing the intrinsic speed of light in the past, it doesn't work in the young Earth/universe favor. The video is by "shanedk"; just type in "creationist and the speed of light" and it should pop up as a tribute to cdk007. Something to consider.

Thank you for that information, I will certainly ponder it. By reading your posts I believe you to be of a scientific mind set. I'd like to put forth another possiblity for you to ponder. In the book of Genesis, It reads where God made Adam and Eve fully Adult, skipping the adolesence phase when He created them, In your opinion is it possible that perhaps when God created the Universe, He created the LIght from these Galxaies, Stars, ect ect, to skip all those long distances and be instantly transported to the earth.?

[Praiseius-Maximus]

http://www.reasons.org/astronomers-age-of-universe

A group of Christians professionally trained in astronomical research has reviewed presentations by Drs. Danny Faulkner and Hugh Ross, covering arguments on the age of the universe. We appreciated the civility and respect of the discourse on a topic often generating more heat than light within the Christian community. Our analysis concentrates on arguments made by the speakers dealing with astronomical data and calculations, rather than about Biblical interpretation or biological evolution, because the former are our areas of professional expertise. We do note that, for example, one's view of Scriptural interpretation and theology will affect the range of models one would consider.

Our aim has been to assess the evidence for the age of the universe in the light of the arguments presented, using a standard scientific approach. Science seeks to make progress in understanding the physical world through inductive reasoning, rather than the watertight proofs found in mathematics. This means that scientific understanding advances through an enormous amount of focused, incremental efforts with many consistency checks in the context of a mutually accountable scientific community. Drawing sound conclusions about a general question such as the age of the universe cannot be done on the basis of one argument alone but requires many different independent experiments including tests that could falsify competing claims. Any conclusions, along with an evaluation of their certainty, are then made on the basis of the overall weight of the available evidence. There will often be some data that appear to disagree with the rest of the evidence; this does not automatically provide evidence for alternative hypotheses but often means that our theoretical understanding is not yet entirely complete.

Ross's arguments provide solid evidence that the universe is billions of years old. He presents several independent arguments, based on a wide range of data, indicating that the universe and most objects in it are much older than ten thousand years. The light-travel-time argument is particularly strong in both its basis in physical principles and its simplicity. Faulkner does not present evidence for a universe thousands of years old but rather makes claims for isolated inconsistencies in the case for great age. While it is common scientific practice to look for holes in well-established theories, the new contrary evidence must either be very strong to counter the existing evidence for the theory or else be supported by a new theory that readily explains both the new evidence and the old. We judge that the "inconsistencies" pointed out by Faulkner do not meet either of these criteria. In some instances the observations are completely consistent with our current understanding of these physical systems in the context of an old universe; in others, while universally accepted interpretations don't exist today and our knowledge is often still incomplete, such explanations are likely to be forthcoming as observations and theory progress. It is our professional judgment that the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly supports a universe that is billions of years old.

Gabriela Canalizo, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside)

Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Baylor University)

Kyle Cudworth, Ph.D. (Director, Yerkes Observatory, Professor, The University of Chicago)

Pamela L. Gay, Ph.D. (Executive Director Astrosphere New Media Association, Edwardsville,

Illinois)

Deborah Haarsma, Ph.D. (Chair and Associate Professor, Physics & Astronomy Department, Calvin College)

Bruce Hrivnak, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Valparaiso University)

Stephen Kane, Ph.D. (NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, Caltech)

William Keel, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama)

Patricia Reiff, Ph.D. (Director, Rice Space Institute, Rice University)

Aaron Romanowsky, Ph.D. (Associate Specialist, University of California Observatories)

Matthew S. Tiscareno, Ph.D. (Research Associate, Department of Astronomy, Cornell University)

Rogier Windhorst, Ph.D. (Regents' and Foundation Professor, School of Earth & Space Exploration, Arizona State University)

Donald York, Ph.D. (Professor, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago)

http://www.reasons.org/files/astronomers-statement.pdf

the Bible will tell you.. the earth is about 6000 years old

[spiritman]

Thank you for that information, I will certainly ponder it. By reading your posts I believe you to be of a scientific mind set. I'd like to put forth another possiblity for you to ponder. In the book of Genesis, It reads where God made Adam and Eve fully Adult, skipping the adolesence phase when He created them, In your opinion is it possible that perhaps when God created the Universe, He created the LIght from these Galxaies, Stars, ect ect, to skip all those long distances and be instantly transported to the earth.?

Your welcome. Yes, science is a passion of mine, and someday I hope to have a scientific career. The idea of Light somehow skipping over the distance is an interesting one that many people come across, however I don't see it as a real possibility. For one, and I think this speaks to a lot of Christians, is why the deception from God? God is supposed to be all about truth, not deception. Why create a vast universe with all the appearance of it being old when it simply isn't? Remember, this isn't a few thousand years off, rather we are talking orders of magnitude that I think are somewhat hard to grasp. Young Earth Creationism proposes that the universe is really more than 2 million times younger than what modern science says or what we can see from galaxies! Why didn't God just create the universe as literally understood by the ancient Hebrews, which had the Earth as the center and a firmament up in the sky instead of this massive deception? So for many, including me, such a major deception just doesn't make sense theologically.

From more of a science angle, the heavens we see aren't static. We see stars explode, colliding, planets orbiting some, and others spinning very rapidly. We even see evidence of galaxies colliding with each other now and in the past. So it isn't just points of light we see, but real events taking (and have token) place. Also, starlight and galaxy-light isn't just light without any information; scientists can determine its wavelength, which for many objects it's proportional to distance because as the light travels it increases in wavelength due to the expansion of the universe. This is scientific evidence that light really does make the full journey. So God not only has to somehow make the light skip the distance, but also do it while making sure it retains properties as if it did make the journey.

While I wouldn't say God can't do all this, I just don't see God doing it as such would be against His nature of being full of truth and giving us the ability/intelligence to understand His creation in a systematic way.

May Christ be your shalom, D-9

Your point is interesting.

So I would like your opinion on something, Why would God create Adam and Eve as full Adults, instead of making them go through the entire process of being cells, then infants, childhood teenager then adult hood? Is it possible, that God created the Universe in the same way, I mean at first making everything instantly appear as if it always was in it's full mature form, then from that point on Like Adam and Eve, conception, then infant, teenage, adult hood. I mean after all isn't that what scientists see in the stars now, stars that are born, they have a cycle, then die? Sounds like the Human life cycle doesn't it? The first star had to come from somewhere right?

[spiritman]

Your point is interesting.

So I would like your opinion on something, Why would God create Adam and Eve as full Adults, instead of making them go through the entire process of being cells, then infants, childhood teenager then adult hood?

From a literary perspective, I don't see how Adam and Eve physically growing up would add anything to our knowledge or understanding; it would be unnecessary for that process to take place. This is a somewhat hard question for me because frankly, I don't think Adam and Eve ever existed. I just don't see the first few chapters of Genesis as literal history or scientifically inclined. So the only reason I can think of is that talking about Adam and Eve growing up, or starting off as infants, doesn't add and/or is unnecessary to get across the spiritual truths needed.

Is it possible, that God created the Universe in the same way, I mean at first making everything instantly appear as if it always was in it's full mature form, then from that point on Like Adam and Eve, conception, then infant, teenage, adult hood. I mean after all isn't that what scientists see in the stars now, stars that are born, they have a cycle, then die? Sounds like the Human life cycle doesn't it? The first star had to come from somewhere right?

According to what I read hear in this scripture God made the stars in one day the forth day. And there purpose is to give light upon the earth. it seems to me like it only took one day for the light of the stars to shine, not millions or billions of years. Todays science does not agree with the Bible especially the book of Genesis.

Genesis is the foundation of a Christians faith, If the unbelievers can topple over Genesis then all the other books of the Bible will fail.

I'm not sure I understand how this is logically different from the other question, other than besides deceptive starlight we have a whole host of other oddities. Stars literally take millions to billions of years to complete their life cycle (It is rare for a star to live less than a million years). Our Sun, for example, will have lived a total of about 8-9 billion years before it dies (assuming God didn't make it old), and it will die slightly quicker than the average star out there.

Another thing that is interesting about stars and age, is when looking at their composition. Stars are mostly made out of hydrogen, which it then fuses to make helium, and if it can, fuse the helium into heavier elements like carbon, neon, beryllium etc. Now when a star dies the new star in its place will be made up of the gas left behind. Which means it will have a higher concentration of heavy elements than the previous star. Statistically, the younger the star is that we observe (assuming that if it is 6,000 light years away we see it as it was 6,000 years ago and if we see it 100,000 light years away...) the less amount of heavier elements they are composed of.

As to where the first stars came from, the short answer is that hydrogen gas came together through gravitational attraction until they became stars.

So as before, I don't want to say God couldn't have done this, yet I don't see God being so deceptive, especially while giving us sense, reason and intellect.

D9,

thanks for your reply, I guess my comment was to bring about the point, that there is a lot of deception in nature. Camophlage is used in nature to defend against preditors, for example the octopus when under threat of attack, will camophlage himself to appear to be part of the background. There are also certain lizzards and other animals that camophlage themselves in the same manner.

This is indeed a form of deception, however perhaps and I say IF God designed the Universe to appear older than what it is then perhaps it is not His intent to decive us but simply the way He designed it.

If we look closer at the scripture that talks about God creating the stars which reads:

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day

Gen 1:14-19 (NASB)

From what what I'm reading here in Genesis Chapter 1:14-19 God created the stars in one day, and that light was shining on the earth doing their job during that fourth day, not millions of years.

When is the first time we see Stars mentioned in the Bible, where a descendant is actually looking at the light of the stars?

Gen 15:2-6

And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness

So now all we have to do if to figure out the time frame this occured. Luke 3:24-38 talks about the geneologies of everyone from Adam to Christ, there is some debate about how long a generation is however most say about 40 years. my point is that Genesis chapter 15:2-6 God instructs Abraham to look at the stars, and there are not millions of years between the time of Adam and Abraham.

Ok you do not believe in Adam and Eve, what do you believe in?

[MorningGlory]

From a literary perspective, I don't see how Adam and Eve physically growing up would add anything to our knowledge or understanding; it would be unnecessary for that process to take place. This is a somewhat hard question for me because frankly, I don't think Adam and Eve ever existed. I just don't see the first few chapters of Genesis as literal history or scientifically inclined. So the only reason I can think of is that talking about Adam and Eve growing up, or starting off as infants, doesn't add and/or is unnecessary to get across the spiritual truths needed.

If you don't believe what the Bible tells you then......I'm sorry, why do you call yourself a believer again? A believer in what?

[spiritman]

quote D-9

From a literary perspective, I don't see how Adam and Eve physically growing up would add anything to our knowledge or understanding; it would be unnecessary for that process to take place. This is a somewhat hard question for me because frankly, I don't think Adam and Eve ever existed. I just don't see the first few chapters of Genesis as literal history or scientifically inclined. So the only reason I can think of is that talking about Adam and Eve growing up, or starting off as infants, doesn't add and/or is unnecessary to get across the spiritual truths needed.

Spiritman's response:

Thank you for this response: D-9 If Adam and eve did not exist then you would have to wipe out the fact that there is sin. Because According to scripture Genesis 3:1-24, and Romans 5:12-14; The disobedience of Adam is why there is sin. Not to mention none of us would exist because we are all descendent's of Adam. Luke 3:23-38 talks about Adam and Eve's descendent's, including Jesus. Which to name a few were Noah, Joseph, Abraham, So we would need to wipe out those chapters of the Bible as well. And if there is no sin, then we better wipe out the chapters about Jesus coming to earth to save us from our sins, because Adam didn't exist to sin in the first place. And If Jesus didn't come to earth to save us from our sins, then we would have to call all those scripture that say He came to save us from our sins a lie.

check out the following scripture:

Gen 3:1-24 (NASB)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "

4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!

5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

10 He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."

11 And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

12 The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;

19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

20 Now the man called his wife's name Eve , because she was the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—

23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Gen 3:1-24 (NASB)

Romans 5:12-14 reads:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Note Read all of Romans Chapter 5

Luke 3:23-38 (NASB)

23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli ,

24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli , the son of Naggai,

26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel , the son of Neri,

28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua , the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah , the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon , the son of Nahshon ,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram , the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu , the son of Peleg, the son of Heber , the son of Shelah,

36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

You see to say that Adam and Eve didn't exist you might as well throw the whole Bible out.

[~candice~]

D9 at some point, you are going to run into the problem of genealogies. They list the family tree of Jesus, going all the way back to Adam. At what point did this list switch from fiction to fact . Why are so many details given about the lives of people who were mythological .

[Ovedya]

With Jesus there are two genealogies and they don't line up with the other, so by default at least one of them is fictitious.

That's fallacious reasoning. A story told from two perspectives where one story doesn't precisely match the other, doesn't mean that one or the other story is fictitious. I would also add that, between Matthew and Luke, neither genealogy conflicts with the other. As far as your other point is concerned, are you trying to argue that Jesus didn't exist because of the fact that some authors spend a lot of time on character development? Sounds pretty thin to me.-

[spiritman]

D9 at some point, you are going to run into the problem of genealogies. They list the family tree of Jesus, going all the way back to Adam. At what point did this list switch from fiction to fact . Why are so many details given about the lives of people who were mythological .

With Jesus there are two genealogies and they don't line up with the other, so by default at least one of them is fictitious. And why are so many details given about the lives of people who obviously didn't exist in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Apparently such detail was significant enough to include it in the literature. There are many roles people take on in literature and in the Bible. A good way to show how great a person was in their role was through a story about them. And as many cultures combined history and mythology so too did the Hebrews.

D-9ner,

thanks for answering my comments. It probably has become obvious to you by now that I'm an young earth creationist. The simple reasons are as follows:

1. I believe that the word of God is literal, and not some fictitious literure. 2. The over whelming evidence that backs YEC up.

For example there are plenty of Historians that confirm the existence of most or all of the people listed in the Bible, that you claim are fictitious.

Here is just a sample.

Book title: The New complete works of Josephus

Bio: Josephus was a First century jew who was a Diplomat, general, and Historian. Josephus was Born in 37 A.D four years after Jesus was crucified. Josephus wrote several books: 1. The Jewish War, 2. Jewish Antiquities, the Life, 3. Against Apion.

Examples of Josephus Historical writings about Historical figures: Book: the New complete works of Josephus: Book 18; chapter 3 verse 3. Josephus writes:

" Now there was about this time Jesus a wise man. if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men that loved hm at the first did not forsake him as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him are not extinct at this day.

Book : The New complete works of Josphus

Book 1; chapter 6 verse 5:

Josphus writes: I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Peleg, whose father was eber, was Reu whose son was Serug. to whom was born Nahor; whose son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the Deludge.

For Terah begat Baram in his seventieth year Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old. Here are some other people that you claim to be fictitious, that this Historian lists as real people:

Milcah, Uz Buz, Kemuel, Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, Bethuel, Reumah, Maacah, Tebah, Laban. This list goes on but for time sake I will just write the short version

I might be as bold to suggest that before you believe everything that some tell you, that you do research, and look it up for yourself. Because there is an old Bible proverb that says: If the Blind lead the Blind they will both fall into a ditch.

Peace and Blessings

Spiritman

[Botz]

D9 at some point, you are going to run into the problem of genealogies. They list the family tree of Jesus, going all the way back to Adam. At what point did this list switch from fiction to fact . Why are so many details given about the lives of people who were mythological .

With Jesus there are two genealogies and they don't line up with the other, so by default at least one of them is fictitious. And why are so many details given about the lives of people who obviously didn't exist in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Apparently such detail was significant enough to include it in the literature. There are many roles people take on in literature and in the Bible. A good way to show how great a person was in their role was through a story about them. And as many cultures combined history and mythology so too did the Hebrews.

I think many of us have a different approach to Scripture.

When something in the Bible appears to be unclear, not possible, a contradiction or an apparent mistake, I have learnt that either I do not understand the passage in its proper context, or that the full message of what is being said eludes me...and like many others I have a number of things on the back-burner that I may not find an answer to in my life-time, but which do not flummox me or cause me to in any way be cautious about the veracity of Scripture.

What I do not do, and am not prepared to do, is to side with human reasoning and logic, against Scripture, so that I bring it down to the limited level of my own understanding.

In this instance concerning the two recorded geneologies, there are various attempts found to make sense of them in a Jewish context, that can be accessed on the internet, together with a plethora of examples that try to use this apparent anomaly to discredit the Bible, mostly utilised by Atheistic sites. Somewhere in between are those like yourself, who because of your overall approach to Scripture are happy enough to call one or both fallacious and leave it at that....to me this emasculates the import and authority of Scripture watering it down to a weak, insipid and ineffective collection of writings that have some good parts to them, but are rife with inconsistancies.

This is in sharp contrast to what we find in Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I am also reminded of this verse in Ecc 7:29 "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."